The politics of the Middle East (and North Africa) are a subject for research within a number of disciplines, fields and subfields, including history, comparative politics, international relations (IR), anthropology, human geography, security studies, terrorism studies, and international political economy (IPE). This can be seen as either as weakness or as strength: the lack of disciplinary coherence precludes a unified approach, but also allows for a considerable degree of inter-disciplinarity in terms of approaches, foci, and results. Yet, these varied standpoints share more than appears at first blush: all display the predominance of positivist epistemology and research methods, and while some are more theoretically-minded than others, they all remain dominated by empirical aims, be these comparative or not. Unsurprisingly, the emergence and growing challenge of a variety of post positivist standpoints in these disciplines and areas have elicited a mixed reception. It is in this context that this special issue of the Journal of Mediterranean Studies operates. It is devoted to considering the ways in which some of these disciplines have been debating a movement away from positivist mainstream traditions, and towards perspectives more sympathetic to post-positivist concerns. Of the disciplines whose explicit remit is to analyse political dynamics at the levels of the state, regional and international politics, a useful distinction between International Relations and so-called Middle East Studies (MES) may be drawn. Despite the fact that MES scholars come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds—e.g. history, comparative politics, political science, etc.—, this distinction is useful in that it reflects different positions on the nature of the study of the politics of the Middle East, and on what constitute appropriate methods of enquiry. These differences have meant that, until the present time, little cross-fertilisation has taken place between these two literatures. This volume contains papers which consider how recent developments within these two sets of perspectives might provide the foundations of precisely such intellectual exchanges.
The Middle East After the Politics of Certainty
Teti G;
2004
Abstract
The politics of the Middle East (and North Africa) are a subject for research within a number of disciplines, fields and subfields, including history, comparative politics, international relations (IR), anthropology, human geography, security studies, terrorism studies, and international political economy (IPE). This can be seen as either as weakness or as strength: the lack of disciplinary coherence precludes a unified approach, but also allows for a considerable degree of inter-disciplinarity in terms of approaches, foci, and results. Yet, these varied standpoints share more than appears at first blush: all display the predominance of positivist epistemology and research methods, and while some are more theoretically-minded than others, they all remain dominated by empirical aims, be these comparative or not. Unsurprisingly, the emergence and growing challenge of a variety of post positivist standpoints in these disciplines and areas have elicited a mixed reception. It is in this context that this special issue of the Journal of Mediterranean Studies operates. It is devoted to considering the ways in which some of these disciplines have been debating a movement away from positivist mainstream traditions, and towards perspectives more sympathetic to post-positivist concerns. Of the disciplines whose explicit remit is to analyse political dynamics at the levels of the state, regional and international politics, a useful distinction between International Relations and so-called Middle East Studies (MES) may be drawn. Despite the fact that MES scholars come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds—e.g. history, comparative politics, political science, etc.—, this distinction is useful in that it reflects different positions on the nature of the study of the politics of the Middle East, and on what constitute appropriate methods of enquiry. These differences have meant that, until the present time, little cross-fertilisation has taken place between these two literatures. This volume contains papers which consider how recent developments within these two sets of perspectives might provide the foundations of precisely such intellectual exchanges.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
